The Constitution on Homosexuals

This has always been a funny issue for me, namely because of my religious upbringing and schooling. It has always been preached that homosexuals are evil humans that are perverting them selves for their own pleasure. Whether that is true or not is up to debate in that arena – in the government arena we have different questions. These questions deal with rights and legal consequences.

I will address two major questions as a fan of small government and constitutional thinking would (not as a religiously focused individual person I am) because that is the only opinion that matters when dealing with laws.

First, can homosexuals get married?

In the present system, states define who can and cannot get married. Under the Constitution, they have that power: under amendment ten. Any powers not given to the federal government are given to the states, powers not used by the states are given to the people – that is simple constitutional thinking. Therefore, if Georgia wants it to be illegal for homosexuals to get married in their state, they have that right. If California wants it to be legal for homosexuals to get married in their state, more power to you.

Ideally, I would like to see states get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage is a religiously defined institution. God came up with the idea according to Judeo-Christian belief systems, and other belief systems. Why does anyone want the government to become a de facto leader and council for their religious organizations. In an ideal system, the individual churches, synagogues, and temples would choose according to their individual religious texts whether or not homosexuals can get married. All laws favoring (or in the present culture, not favoring) marriage should be taken off the books. Let the religious institution not be tampered by government.

Secondly, can homosexuals volunteer in the military?

I would like to begin with a quote from the 1964 Republican Presidential Nominee and Republican Senator from Arizona from 1953 until 1987, Barry M. Goldwater:

"After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it 'a bit of an old chestnut'"

Barry Goldwater is correct – homosexuals have served there country honorably and will continue to serve there country honorably. The root question lies, why does it really matter?

Does anyone honestly think that two American soldiers are going to get into a gun fight because another solider is gay?

Do they think a gay solider is going to rape another solider because they think they are attractive?

If these are really the case, than why do they allow women into the military – wait, because adultery is a punishable crime in the military. So, if a gay man cheated on his gay husband, he would be kicked out on the same charges.

It appears to me that this is type of thinking is designed for only one thing – to divide the American people from fighting the real social battles and the true problems facing this country: the rapid detraction of the liberties of the people, the enslavement of the youth of the country in military drafts, and a tax code that is stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars away from the working peoples of this country, and a Federal Reserve Board that is lining their pockets with our tax money.

As long as the people are divided, thought to think everyone is groups instead of as one American People, we will continue down the slipping slope down the road to serfdom until we can not remember, nor recognize the country we once lived in.

Obama Does Something Right – Kinda…

I can not believe I am about to type this…

Obama is right.

Ok – the shock is over.

Obama has done the first thing I can actually say I am proud of and it has to do with his education reform. He is letting local school districts make the choice to raise their mediocre standards or not get any federal money.

Obama is to the right of Bush on education!!!!

Despite this pleasant change – local school districts shouldn't have to have Uncle Sam's money as an incentive to raise the standards. If any school district is able to raise the standard after Obama implements this program – they should have there school board fired. It is obvious in that case that these "public servants" are only after money.

Another slight problem: more than likely, the money will still go to the big city schools with the lowest SAT scores and highest drop out rates after the states get their hands on the money

Also – the Secretary of Education ultimately gets to choose which schools gets the money, and you know that he has the opportunity to favor some districts and states over others.

So – corruption in Washington will more than likely destroy the good intentions of Obama. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!

This is why the founding fathers did not want education at the federal level, and why the Department of Education should be abolished, but this plan is better than the Bush administrations "Let Every Child Pass" Program that has caused the students in our Middle Schools and High Schools to become increasingly dumb.

The best plan would to eliminate the Department of Education at the federal level, and allow the states to compete without Uncle Sam's money as a grand prize. It worked before Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, and it can work today.

Budget Stupidity: Food Prices

Alright – their are several things I think government shouldn't be doing.

The following two programs are on the top of my list, and they go hand in hand:

Farmer Subsidies and Food Stamps.

I know, I must sound cruel and insensitive to farmers and the under-privileged – but am I the only one that realizes that these two institutions are counter-productive.

The Government has spent $177,589,000,000 between the years 1996 and 2006 to tell farmers not to grow food.

The official reason the program was started during the Great Depression was to keep food prices high to prevent all of the farmers from going bankrupt to the whims of foreign competition.

So, it keeps food prices artificially high, costing Americans more every year of the food they have to have.

Thats the first step…

…once you can't afford food according to the government list of qualifications, they will pay for your food.

The SNAP program, and other food stamp programs, cost an estimated 61.5 billion dollars in the 2010 budget. That is $61,500,000,000. That is NOT including the millions of dollars these programs received in the Obamanation Stimulus Plan of 2009.

That sounds great at first – but why is the food expensive?

Because they are MAKING it that way with the farm subsidies.

With one hand, they hand billions of dollars to the farmers not to grow in order to keep prices high and with the other hand they are handing billions of dollars to families that now cannot afford food because the farmers are not growing it.

And than here is the kicker – the Constitution does not give Congress the right to do ANY of this.

If Congress would simply LIVE BY THERE OATH OF OFFICE, we would not be handing billions upon trillions of dollars to people in this counter-productive cycle.

In the Time I've Been AWOL

Ok, I have FIVE things to say:

First – sorry for my absence. School was crazy.

Second – Obama has lost the little respect I have for him. He is simply a racist that has used the false promise of hope to get elected. I would say Bush was better, but he promised to end the nation building of the Clinton years. I guess it's all in the family.

Third – I have lost the little respect I had for the GOP. The party went from being Go Bail-Out and McCain canceling his campaign to "Get It Passed" to hating bail-outs. The reason appears to be simple – the president is not a Republican anymore. Therefore the "Grand Old Party" is simply the Old Party. I don't like the old (or new) idea of socialism or fascism. So GOP is now on my list of political parties I will never vote for. Congrats – you have joined the list of shame. I am stuck to choose between my self-imposed two party system now. Libertarian or Constitution. At least it is a choice. The DNC and GOP are simply the same party with a different letter. Do you like the letter R or D. Maybe we can have a system where if your last name starts with letters A-M you are a Democrat and N-Z you are a Republican. Honestly, that is the biggest difference between the two parties. It is sad.

Fourth – I read FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom again. It applies SO much to our time, it is incredible. If everyone in the US were to read that book – both the GOP and DNC would have to take up actual stances they truly believe in, or would cease to exists. Either of those two options seem alright to me right now.

Fifth – Minimum wage went up – yet my pay check didn't change. I wonder if politicians will figure out that minimum wage actually doesn't increase our wages. It does allow us to get second jobs – but the forced wage hike, economic collapse they created, and the tax code that prevents me from keeping MOST of my paycheck (and I earn minimum wage) has done the great job of preventing that.

Obama Congressional Speech Analysis: Back In the Days of Jackson

“And though all of these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.

A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations...

Regulations -- regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

President Obama confronts the touchiest subject in government, how to spend the money. As Ron Paul has mentioned in countless speeches and forums, government in the United States have taken the word “compromise” to mean spend the money on both Democrat and Republican projects, increasing the debt and causing money to vanish from tax payers pockets.

He is correct, however, of his assessment, more than likely because he was in the meeting causing this entire deficit. Senator have the power to stop a budget that is not balanced, but he had done nothing to stop it. Now he is President, so his voice will be heard, right?

Obama than looks at history. Surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy. President Van Buren did do all of this to the surplus Andrew Jackson created; the last time the United States had a surplus. What this has to do with our current situation, I do not know. Maybe, President Obama is try to sneak a punch at the Federal Reserve, reminding them when Democrat Andrew Jackson shut down the Bank of the United State, creating the first and only surplus in the United States.

What am I saying!

Obama is referring to the budget surplus of the Clinton Administration, a creation of the Republican Congress defeating Hillary Care. He is stating that this budget surplus should have been spent on the project the Clinton Administration wanted to spend it on. He is trying to stretch a rumor. Yes, there was a surplus in the budget, but that means that we could start to pay off our debts; not start to gain more. A budget surplus is not a surplus, just a profit in taxes. The United States was still in a deficit.

On the housing crisis, President Obama, it was the Democrats that created the loan regulations to allow the banks to spread the wealth and give loan to those they knew could not pay it off. It would have been in their interest to not give these people money, but the Fed made them, Congress made them. It is your fault we are in this mess, Congress and all of it’s members that did not fight against this. Republican and Democrat, Left and Neo-Right. The True Right, those like Ron Paul, was against this, trying to stop it, but you did not listen. We are now in this mess because the government forced banks to give people loans that the banks knew people could not pay. In the Free Market, those people would not have been given loans, but when the Government gives banks a way out, it is a win-win situation. Goodness, just stop trying to help, you are bleeding the economy to death!